Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The End of the Internet

By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006.


America's big phone and cable companies want to start charging exorbitant user fees for the supposedly-free internet.
Advertisement

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.

Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency.

According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.

Under the plans they are considering, all of us -- from content providers to individual users -- would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.

To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine.

The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based capitalist economy."

Net Neutrality

To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable companies would not be allowed to slow down competing or undesirable content.


Digg!

Jeffrey Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy (www.democraticmedia.org).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
And?
Posted by: Colin on Feb 6, 2006 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely regular readers of Alternet aren't surprised by this news? Indeed, I've no doubt if you went back to the mid-eighties and the onset of the internet, you could have predicted that small groups of people would eventually get together and try and find ways for people to pay for something they didn't have to originally. There's a part of me that's surprised it's taken this long.

The irony, of course, being that when Tim Berners-Lee merged his hypertext with the internet to create what we're typing on right now, he specifically did it for free and demanded no royalties. I remember hearing one economist claiming that if he had demanded some royalty and the internet had carried on to be the success it is today, Berners-Lee would have a personal fortune that would make Bill Gates look pretty small fry.

Phone companies - if you're listening, learn the lesson. I don't know if you've noticed but the entire world really is a better place because of one single persons' good will. Any chance of the next good person being you guys? (Sorry - news just in - it seems I have to phone a premium line before they'll even consider listening)

So, yeah. No surprises whatsoever that people are trying to squeeze money from places they really aren't entitled. Fortunately, we should all have strong governments, who's primary concern is the people they represent, who will fight to protect us from minority corporations wanting to take what isn't theirs. Oh fuck...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And? Posted by: boing007
» RE: And? Posted by: Colin
» RE: And who paid for the upgrades? Posted by: afrothetics
» RE: And? Posted by: Lizka
» RE: And? Posted by: Lizka
» RE: And? Posted by: qidproquo
And What Else?
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 6, 2006 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To And?
I wish you would be more detailed and specific about the idea that some companies would 'find ways for people to pay for something they didn't have to originally.' I know that the Internet was conceived and designed by the militay and that, as taxpayers, we all paid for its creation. What else can you add to that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If We`re to Unite....
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Feb 6, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story today is the most important one we as progressive
thinking people,face today...now! Because if we lose this medium...this great place to communicate with others who
feel rejected by our government....to say what needs said....
to bond with others in a convenient way!! Its powerful ...and
they know it...and we`re about to lose it! I feel its already compromised with the NSA thing...keeping an eye on dissent
in our country.But we are in the near future about to lose any
way to communicate..."under the radar" ...so to speak!! Then
what? If we do not ...as free thinking...rational...citizens do
something to stop this legislation....we may as well open our
windows....take hold of our computers ...and toss them out the window!! Because we`ll need another way...to UNITE!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If We`re to Unite.... Posted by: Lincoln fan
I'm no rabid "free market" proponent...
Posted by: Paul D on Feb 6, 2006 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I can't help but think that there will be some small-fry providers who will not be fleecing their customers.

Once word gets around that there is an alternative to the crappy, expensive, and substandard service of a "private network", customers will begin to flow AWAY from the big names.

*ahem* AOL, anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FASCISM SUCKS
Posted by: rabblerowzer on Feb 6, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Republicans and corporations can figure a way to do it, they will be charging us a fee for breathing. Everything Republicans do is predicated on preying on the masses to enrich the already obscenely rich.

We are a nation ruled by a slim majority of shit-eating bottom-feeders to stupid to grasp their own self-interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FASCISM SUCKS Posted by: dwegowy
» RE: FASCISM SUCKS Posted by: rabblerowzer
» RE: FASCISM SUCKS Posted by: jwg
» RE: FASCISM SUCKS Posted by: nptexas
» RE: FASCISM SUCKS Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: FASCISM SUCKS Posted by: gdieken
» Of Course they will Posted by: GreenLibbie
» RE: Of Course they will Posted by: Lizka
» RE: FASCISM SUCKS Posted by: mac macgillicuddy
Internet Domination
Posted by: kick on Feb 6, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Illuminati have employed hugh think tanks with tremendous capacity to consider,patiently, all possibilities and scenarios to guarantee absolute victory and success in all viable markets. All cost to operate have been passed, like always, down to the little guy. The proven, practiced and patented methods of this world power have keep them in control for centuries and will ,no doubt ,use the internet to insure their continued world domination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Internet Domination Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Internet Domination Posted by: starvinmarvy
» Act how????? Posted by: Prophit
» act how??? Posted by: Coleman
There is only one important issue.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Feb 6, 2006 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one all important issue is who controls our government? All other issues depend on that one. Is it the people or is it the corporatocracy? We must settle this question once and for all. Now! We must force a showdown. Which is more important to our politicians the votes of the people or the money of the corporate establishment?

Face it. We are stuck with two parties. A third party isn't an option. Our only hope is to take control of our government through the existing parties. If our votes are valuable we can do it. If they are not we can't. If our votes only decide which party serves the corporatocracy they are worthless.

"government of the people, by the people, and for the people" can such a nation long endure? Let's find out.
Join The Lincoln Initiative; not for the faint of heart.. Click on do it now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only problem is...
Posted by: smidget2k4 on Feb 6, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only problem with their plan is that once the content of the internet dries up, people will stop using it. If they start charging companies like google and yahoo! to use the pipes then they might just pull their business, as they have plenty of stake in other areas of interest now.

Their plan cannot work the way the internet is set up. They can try to offer private nets sort of like AOL does, but that is pretty all. Also, it would have to be almost a global overthrow. Competition from elsewhere in the world would crush them.

I think this just may be a few overzealous CEOs talking about things they don't really know much about. It is really almost infeasable that they actually succeed with this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The only problem is... Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The only problem is... Posted by: Lincoln fan
» That's the whole point Posted by: Iconoclast421
We pay them for the lines now
Posted by: Summer on Feb 6, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look in all those fees charged on your phone bill. One of them, probably the biggest charge, is what each of us pay for the internet. It pays for the lines so there is no internet charge and it is all interconnected. It may be the communications charge.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Al Gore came up with that idea, so every little town and every school would have access to the internet.

Remember when it was 10 cents a minute (at least it was in our area), how fast those minutes added up? It could get expensive fast.

The web sites aren't using the phone lines for free. Each person who has a phone pays for the cost. If you have two phones in your house, you pay two times the cost.

They count on the rest of us not being aware of this. They have convenient memories.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We pay them for the lines now Posted by: DrakeBrimstone
Tell the People of Ohio, Tennessee et-al
Posted by: jrmart66 on Feb 6, 2006 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it is my firm belief that in Presidential Elections, very little of the subsidiary effects of electing one or the other candidates is known. The "average" voter is concerned about (at least in the last election) security. God Forbid those nasty ragheads get their hooks into Council Bluffs!. Then they are worried about taxes. (i'm allright, screw you), health care usually follows next. But NO ONE seems to understand what "regulators" and federal judges, and in what changes in the Supreme court can mean to their everyday lives. I would doubt that 1/2 of 1 percent of Americans even know who the FCC chairman is, or what he does. But wait until they take away their Television choices, Then see what happens. but of course by then it will be too late. !! What to do, What to do???
Raise our voices. Bring the issues to the public. Get the local small papers involved. Get the town cable councils working. Silence is the ally of the Corporations. SPEAK OUT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

capital
Posted by: karyse on Feb 6, 2006 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The typical consumer bitches about paying 2.50 per gallon for gasoline while they willing pay over 6.00 per gallon for water that is no better than that which comes out of their faucet. The interesting thing about the millions of gallons of water that we buy, a pint at a time, is that no one HAS to do it (yet).

Marx theorized "ideology," the mechanism that gets people to believe and do things that go counter to their best interests, and the internet, as seemingly satisfying as it is, is actually responsible for the radical fragmentation that has occured among people.

The internet, while seemingly "information rich" is acutally nothing but a drain one's time. It feels like I'm doing something as I write this post -- but am I? I am a "low level" user, in that I only spend an average of two hours a day online, but even at two hours a day, couldn't that time be better spent?

We are sitting isolated, in our little cubbies, preaching to the choir -- we get tidbits of information; we get the feeling that there are others that are like us; we pretend we have a "community" even as our public spaces have all but disappeared. Even research is a pain in the ass online; by the time I sift through all of the bogus links in a search, I'm too exhausted to do anything with the information I do find. Wouldn't it be better to go to a public library, encounter other people, get into a debate about something? Wouldn't it be better to start my own newspaper about local politics that wouldn't rely on capital and could therefore tell the truth?

I almost welcome a total, visible, takeover by Capital then, just as I quit reading the newspapers, watching television, using a cell phone, I could quit checking my email.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: capital Posted by: metavurt
» RE: capital Posted by: bowriter
» RE: capital Posted by: Lizka
» RE: capital Posted by: karyse
Capital is half right
Posted by: kenhymes on Feb 6, 2006 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the sentiment of Capital's point: that we are less influential than we think, and that talking isn't the same as doing, and that the internet can create a false sense of community. However, the problem is that we have few other resources to keep dissent alive across national and regional boundaries, especially those who live in authoritarian states already. We need every tool we can get to spread accurate and useful information that counters the official line(s). The answer is not less internet, it's more community action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Capital is half right Posted by: karyse
» RE: Capital is half right Posted by: Lincoln fan
Its still a free country
Posted by: luckypablo on Feb 6, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. Very simple. And I agree with the person that suggested somebody would undoubtedly undercut the big boys and we'll probably have a better Internet in the end. After all there are now other delivery systems besides phone and cable. I actually think phone and cable are obsolete and eventually it will be all wireless with nothing to worry about in these grim scenarios you paint.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Its still a free country Posted by: scrugun
» RE: Its still a free country Posted by: Entheogenic
Control the machine before the machine controls us.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 6, 2006 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, 'Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!' "

What the hell is this a**hole talking about? Free pipes?! We get our broadband via cable, and it costs us $40 a month, regardless of how much it's used. AT&T charges about the same. Cell phones cost from $30 to $100 or more per month, for crappy service that barely works half the time!

Mister wiseacre Whitacre's "pipes" are already being paid for with those fees and the monthly rental fees for phone lines; and now he wants MORE?! So, I guess corporations have figured out that if they raise monthly fees too much people will balk, so why not nickle-and-dime 'em to death with a million little penny-ante charges instead? I swear, if corporations could figure out how to put meters up our noses, they'd charge us for the very air we breathe. When will people wise up to the fact that uncontrolled corporate greed will eventually bleed us all dry?

The way that corporations think of human beings (or don't think of them) today, how long will it be before each new human in WalMart America will have to pay a corporation to merely continue to exist? Don't laugh: as of a few years ago, your and my genes could be patented without our knowledge, so that those of us who have unique qualities that industry wants, no longer own our own bodies. When it comes to corporate profit, ANYTHING is possible if a doller sign can be attached to it.

The only answer I can think of for this (forget politicians, they don't give a s**t about us because they know we vote like Lemmings) is to cancel services en masse to the point that we kill corporations' bottom lines. An example where this worked: the Montgomery, Alabama muni bus line back in the '60's, which treated blacks like crap until they boycotted. The bus line nearly went bankrupt before blacks returned. If it worked there, a boycott can work here as well. We need to stop the greed of corporations before they tie nooses around everybody's necks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All Progressives Heed Warning
Posted by: Kanefire on Feb 6, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there was ever an issue to unify around, this is it. With the loss of the internet is the loss of our ability to be informed. If we lose the ability to be informed, we might as well pull down the whole system and start over. To have that kind of power imbalance would surely mean the pseudo slavery of all (not that it isn't already the case).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All Progressives Heed Warning Posted by: ttmrichter
The public must reserve free rights of usage
Posted by: JackA on Feb 6, 2006 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can any one turn up the volume on this issue? We know its been coming for a long time, ever since the Democrats shared complicity in 1996 in giving away the media to the corporations. Not only is the profit motive at work, but also the propaganda motive. Right wing hate radio really took off, when Reagan fired the first shot and got rid of the "fair comment" rule. Its time for all Democratic candidates to make this an issue.

I think there is what George Lakoff might call a "cognitive gap" on this one. My attempt to fill that gap is to look at the concept of "Givings", as part of "fairness" - the simple idea that the public receive fair compensation from private entities for what the public gives to them, in the nature of public resources, public investments, public airwaves, public infrastructure, subsidies, tax breaks, credits. The public must reserve free rights of usage, and receive monetary compensation in perpetuity for the use of its resources, such as airwaves in the case of TV media, for example. Since the U.S. citizens paid for the development of the internet with their tax dollars, and investment in educational infrastructures, and research, then this new dramatic and alarming development is definitely another corporate screw job.

Even the Pentagon is beginning to understand this necessity as it tries to sell its closed bases, such as El Toro for fair market value to private developers. We need to re-visit our contracts which gave away the internet, and take back rights which our bribed and corrupt politicians gave away for pennies on the dollar in campaign contributions and lobbying gifts. As for the internet companies, they received in effect "stolen property" , stolen from us, and have no right to keep it, under the present terms. I think there is room for negotiation here.


Every political candidate needs to address this issue of the internet, as well as the media, election integrity, the war and the national budget that gives 67% of it to war and war related expenses. We need to develop peace-related jobs, with workers who vote their jobs for peace, not for jobs producing horrific weapons.

Our communities are being sucked dry. Who is speaking up for our kids and families at home?

Every avenue of redress of grievances, of communication of information is being throttled. Whether its a quiet message on a t-shirt, or an internet e-mail

I watched Bill Gates recently say, with a churlish grin on his face, that it would be a good idea to charge a penny per e-mail to create a little "friction", or "resistance" on the internet. When the absolute right to freedom of speech is no longer a moral value in a culture, then you find the likes of desperate people burning down consulates over an offensive cartoon, as we just saw in the middle east. Our country's founders understood that they were designing a system for voices to be heard, and for peaceful transitions of government to occur without violence. This authoritarian corporate and theocratic cabal in Washington, is a real menace. The failure of Democrats and Republicans of good will to mount an offensive action to protect our communities and our rights, is an abomination. Even corporate pirates and those preachers who want to turn the U.S. into a Christian nation, as a base to spread Christianity all over the globe at the point of a gun, will have to learn the hard lesson, that unless, and until ALL of us are safe, secure, free, and prospering, NONE of us will be! That is the lesson of our Constitutional heritage.


Jack Kaplan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TagsNOLA
Posted by: TagsNOLA on Feb 6, 2006 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution is to reverse the headlong rush to privitization. The "free trade" crowd would "privatize" the Interstates to a privately owned monopoly if they could. Formerly, the internet backbone was owned by the public. It needs to be taken back. Mere defensive measures are ineffective and always will be. This is because some greedy corporate types could come back and try again another day. Why shouldn't they? They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The best way to hit back is to demand that the internet be returned to some form of public ownership. Access by commercial carriers should be based upon a strict and highly regulated quid pro quo. The owners' onramps should be allowed to make a decent return on bona fide investment. But, in return, they should provide low cost, high quality service to their subscribers. And they should not be allowed to interfere with local municipalities and the like who wish to provide free wifi services to their citizens.

Even now, internet access costs more than it should. If there were a groundswell of public sentiment to nationalize the telephones, including cellular service, the internet and cable TV, I think the CEO's and shareholders of these corporate entities would "get religion" really fast.

True, a government owned communication grid could present problems all its own. But, if you consider that a show stopper, what you're saying in effect is that the constitutional republican model of governance does not really work in actual practice. But actually, I think it does. We have such a publicly owned "communication grid" already, the interstate highway system. So why not a publicly owned internet whose charter is to guarantee free, open and unmolested access to users, so long as their use is peacable, legal and respectful of the rights of others. And enforcement of that standard should be against those who violate the rights of others, not some kind of "profilaxis" that penalizes the rest of us.
TagsNOLA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Problems Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Problems Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Serfs don't need to travel Posted by: GreenLibbie
» RE: TagsNOLA Posted by: TheJamea
Give them the finger
Posted by: Ming on Feb 6, 2006 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like TV, your computer and phone depend on you using your finger(s) to make the connection work. I have found it very rewarding to program my TV remote to eliminate unwanted channels that come with my cable TV package. I think the first one I blocked was MTV. I hardly use my home's land line telephone and don't own a wireless phone. I may spend 1/2 hour at home on the computer. As much as I enjoy TV, the phone, and the computer, I can do quite nicely without them for long periods of time. If you don't like the programming or the costs, cut back or eliminate the source.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Give them the finger Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: Give them the finger Posted by: Barbara
» RE: Give them the finger Posted by: crusty
The ownership of everything
Posted by: condenser on Feb 6, 2006 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So now we have to contend with the land grabbers of the virtual world. I'd be very surprised if there is anything at all anyone can do to stop this. I'm unaware of any way I can get on the net that doesn't use someone's hardware. Is there such a thing as the internet if there are no carriers and telecom providers? There may be, but what is a network that is not connected?
I don' t share the view that there will always be some outfit that will exist as a cheaper option. The telecom networks are not owned by the peope and for the people. You may be able to sell access to the net cheaply, but how does that force the big players to carry your traffic on their lines? Not everyone can service the globe.
This is not a problem conerning just the internet. Who owns the water ressources of the world? I think it is clear that the peope who pipe it to your house do when you have no choice but to use their piping network. What will stand in the way of having people sell you passes to wonder around freely in an owned world one day?
It's the problem with the ownership of the world mentality that haunts capitalism. We have set no limits for it. It's all up for grabs. There are no moral restrictions.
Will the governments come to the rescue? Why would they? The monetary policies of the country encourage the creation of new sources of spending. We have become a GDP driven society. It is what sustains the current broken system. It is totally flawed. We need to start valuing social well being in our economic policies with measures like the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). If that interest you, here's a simple and clear overview: http://dieoff.org/page11.htm
The free net was good. I' ll miss it. It certainly isn't a necessity of life though. I got rid of my TV, radio and newspapers over two years ago. Surprisingly, I don't miss them at all. If there is one thing I have learned , it is that some freedom can come from eliminating spending also.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pipes
Posted by: cjones on Feb 6, 2006 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?.....free is nuts

Then why did you build them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Uh ... Profit? Posted by: AdamSelene11726
Is 1984 only late in coming?
Posted by: Syzygy on Feb 6, 2006 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the phone company charges me for access to the web is reasonable; that they wish to monitor and regulate how I use the web is, without a doubt, contrary to my constitutional rights to privacy. I pay sales tax on every book I buy. Does this give any agency the right to compile a list of every book I purchase? Perhaps some day.

Our federal government is on a campaign to subvert our rights and they are succeeding because we have taken our eye off the ball. As a nation, we have convinced ourselves that we are powerless to stop this so we simply don't try. Let's keep in mind that our government is still relatively young and that self-destruction is very much in the realm of possibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One thing
Posted by: gjames on Feb 6, 2006 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just want to say: fuck Ed Whitacre.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well said Posted by: ordaj
what about dialup
Posted by: iremember on Feb 6, 2006 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Big Brother control, according to this article, is specific to broadband. What about those of us to are still dialup customers of small independent ISP's. Will they be sucked into Big Brother's ass too?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what about dialup Posted by: hkc
Totally addicted
Posted by: Summer on Feb 6, 2006 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is what we all need to learn, to not think we "have" to have the goodies.

Sometimes, I look back to the peacefulness and the free time I had before there was much on TV that I liked, before there was a phone everywhere you went and when there was no internet. We had time to sit out side and sip tea and watch the chidren play and take an afternoon nap.

Now the kids are addicted to their video games, the net and TV. Our electricity goes off at times and it is hard to go cold turkey. But a person could cut way back and eliminate one or two of them, if it gets too ugly.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/charges.html has the charges that everyone pays on their phone bill. There are three charges that has to do with connectivity. One of them has to be paid by the customer, but some of charges, the companies are supposed to pay and they pass them to us to pay, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can this be stopped subversively?
Posted by: drmeow on Feb 6, 2006 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this something that hackers can wreck havoc with? Wouldn't these kinds of internet restrictions require code? If so, can we turn hackers into guerilla warriors?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

georges649@msn.com
Posted by: Edward George on Feb 6, 2006 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hasn't anyone noticed that liberal/progressives are almost totally dependent on the internet because they are frozen out of the regular media by its big business "conservative" owners. OF COURSE they want to shut down individual access to the internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unlimited capacity
Posted by: Edward George on Feb 6, 2006 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fiber optics laid across the country had tons of spare capacity because it was just as cheap to lay a bundle of fibers, which can't short circuit, and because light is so high a frequency one light beam can be modulated with many messages. Subsequently they found ways to multiply this capacity by sending many different colors on the same fiber and modulate them individually. In other words, the transmission itself costs almost nothing. The remaining cost is mostly management profiteering and bullshit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The final attack on our freedom
Posted by: Freedom84 on Feb 6, 2006 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is where we all have to draw the line, the internet, is our last bastion and hope for freedom, a wealth of information, and communication at our fingertips, the United States Governemnt and almost any other Government out there has been dying to control the internet, because they fear its power, to provide information, yes an informed and educated populace is not a populace which easily bends the knee. This is a sad day if we allow corporations to take over and completely yank our tool of freedom from underneath us. I believe this is one cause that should unite us all, from every walk of life from the liberal, to even the conservative, the internet is the freedom tool of the people to lose this is to lose everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A tolerable email charge system
Posted by: SicfkOfBush on Feb 6, 2006 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a major factor in the cost of making the email system work is spam. However, malware and DOS attacks add also.
Some two years ago I proposed to a Lockergnome blog a "charge" system for emails that would end spam and probably much of the malware. The idea goes like this:

Place a charge against the source at each stage of the transfer of emails for each email sent. Wait! Read it all before deciding it won't work.

Here is the plan. At each stage that stage issues a temporary charge against the prior stage to receive and pass on the email until it reaches the final addressee. The final addressee either opens the email, in which case the charge is cancelled back through the system using the Reply system already built in and no net charge results. If the final addressee fails to open the email and cancels it or designates the email as junk mail no credit is returned and the initiator is, in the end, the one who pays. The net result is no cost for legitimate emails.

The system can be set up by agreement between ISPs, without legislation and without any legal problems such as denial of constitutional rights. Only unopened emails or emails designated as junk mail by the final recipient will see a charge. Legitimate emails opened by the recipient will see no charge. No added software is needed to separate the junk from good mail. The recipient would act as the filter.

The system can include a procedure requiring each entity at each stage of the process to have an "account" set up with the next receiving stage or the email will not be accepted and passed on. Since an account identification is required at each stage, it will create a method for identifying the sender. Thus, creators of viruses, worms, and Trojans will be readily identified. Further, the expense of the sending massive numbers of emails will shut down the generators of nearly all spam. Also, attempts to take over other computer systems to act without the owners knowledge as the apparent source of the email can be frustrated by the need for an account for the email to be accepted and passed on.

Each initiator of email could establish a limit for the number of emails that that initiator would send each day, each month, or whatever. Anything beyond that number would not be accepted. Thus, a spammer could not take over an average user's computer and send out spam. For example, if I set my limit at 10 per day, no spammer could gain from that.

An association of ISPs would be set-up which would receive all funds and use them to cover any costs, maintain or advance the system.

As with all systems, some glitches will appear but they will, in most cases, be resolved. In any event, the system will be far better than what exist at present.

Dana Ridgley danarid@msn.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's a pretty good idea. Posted by: WhatNow?
Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty, so they tell me.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 6, 2006 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who manage the channels of communication will be looking for new revenue streams. That's what they are paid to do. Finding something to sell makes markets possible.

"Public" is never free, but it has become a bad word because it means it belongs outside the market. Since the biggest market in town is called "election day," and since those who sell themselves to voters need tons of cash, all markets converge.

If owners of communication channels want to collect more money, they will have to pay more money in taxes and political contributions. But since they get to take a cut of whatever passes through their hands (I have yet to meet anyone whose phone bill is less today than it was 30 years ago) it's a game they are willing to play.

Fighting over the distribution of wealth is what it means to be a citizen. Every proposal made to increase private income from public communication deserves to be countered by new taxes that cannot be passed on to consumers.

But the new problem of Congress redesigning legislation in Conference Committee has made that orderly process a con-man's dream come true. No system can survive long under the terms of take the money and run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A simple solution to the writer's concerns
Posted by: stefano on Feb 6, 2006 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lots of this has been happening for years
Posted by: JoeBackward on Feb 6, 2006 7:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, I think it's real important to do our homework before organizing action on this.

A lot of this has been going on for years. If you want to run a web site that serves a lot of content fast to AOL, home broadband, and edu domain subscribers, you need to sign an expensive contract with a good-quality internet data center. They charge for the bandwidth your web site sends out. The ones that have the best connectivity to the big subscriber bases charge more -- a lot more -- than other hosting places.

So, if Alternet, for example, wants to push a lot of high-bandwidth stuff all over the net, they'll have to pay their hosting provider to do that. The costs for a big-bandwidth web site are high enough to give deep-pocket corporations a big fat advantage.

If I download a 200 megabyte update from Microsoft on my comcast connection, it arrives in 5-6 minutes. If I download the same sized file from an independent game provider it can take half an hour. Guess which content provider pays more for network services? Microsoft.

Does this make sense? Well, basically, yes. Internet data centers take a LOT of electricity to operate. Reliable backbone service needs to have lots of redundant power supplies and cooling, etc = more electricity. Also, internet data centers have to pay "peering" charges for access to long-distance packet transmission and to big subscriber networks, and they pass this cost along. So the practice of charging for bandwidth, and charging more for "good" bandwidth, isn't necessarily nefarious at its root.

One of the threats mentioned in this article is traffic-shaping within the big subscriber networks based on content. Traffic-shaping = looking at the contents of packets to decide what priority they should have.

There are good technical reasons to do this traffic shaping. For example to make skype and other audio services work properly when the net is busy, those packets need a modest priority bump.

Another example: if you sign up for a web site that costs $20 a year and post a bunch of 50-megabyte highly attractive files, and thousands of people try to download them, your web site provider needs to shape your traffic to slow it down or go broke paying for the bandwidth to serve your content.

Now of course the network providers could do packet shaping for profit, trying to extract more money directly from content providers for fast-laning content. They already do. Just ask Akamai for a quote on data delivery to end users and you'll find out what I'm talking about.

Remember Claude Rains's line from Casablanca? "I'm shocked, shocked, to see that gambling is taking place in this establishment." Well, griping about the gross injustice of fast-lane content is the same thing -- it's already completely embedded in the economics of the internet.

There IS a threat that's real, and that is the use of content-sensitive traffic shaping technology to choke off certain traffic entirely. The Chinese government apparently does this. So does "Net Nanny" and the like .

Don't forget that documents of world-changing power like the US Declaration of Independence, the New Testament, or the Communist Manifesto are all hundreds of kilobytes long -- the same size as a few big JPEG files. It takes a lot of aggressive traffic shaping to completely block ideas.

If we're going to organize to counter a threat, let's do our homework first and know exactly what the problem is, and what solution we want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Great American Business Model
Posted by: rollo on Feb 6, 2006 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is to take something that people enjoy for free and convince them to pay money for it. Examples: TV, radio, water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]